Regrets

Misc.

Agenda

User Scenarios

LKUser Scenarios. First
scenario: The user is a person writing an evaluation for a site. It's a 3rd
party evaluator. /* Len reads from the User Scenarios page */ Item 1.

WL Similar to what people like Kelly Ford do. This would regularize the
process.

AG One pod in a scenario with 3 activities.

LK Item 2: combine output.

HB Implication on running tools in same presentation environment? The same
user preferences set in the user agent? Part of the evaluation? Running with
Lynx, may have different reactions and propose different repairs.

LK Are you saying that when you run a tool, there would be setup parameters
like "assume this capability in the browser." This relates to a WCAG
discussion.

HB My suggestion is that we need to capture the user's environment from
which they are making the observations. Even how using the tools.

BM The test tool should always put relevant info into description.

WL Yes, and that the environment is relevant.

BM For later on analysis? As long as that is recorded, then up to combiner
tool to bring together.

AG A genuine quality factor for the data. How much of that environment is
capturable.

BM Need more examples of what is relevant.

AG Good to capture and good to automate.

BM Yes.

AG But separate issue from combing input from different tools.

LK HB Could you give examples of a couple different environments?

HB No specific cases. Concerned that Gregory running a tool might have
different insights that we would not get if we're not using the same ATs that
he is.

AG Why people put different text in alt-text: someone using Lynx versus
someone using Netscape. Lynx inlines while Netscape puts it in a box. In
Netscape, click on the text you get the image. Therefore in Netscape you put
description of image while in Lynx causes people to write functional.
Therefore, helps to automate as much as possible. You might want info about
the tools that were used and the settings.

LK Another aspect: if you run a tool and it identifies tests that were not
passed. e.g. WAVE does fewer tests than Bobby or A-Prompt it would be useful
to have indication of the scope so you know what the tool could have
potentially checked.

HB That's a profile of the tool.

LK That would be a subcase of what HB bringing up. That will give info of
the environment.

AG This relates to my new scenario. "3 box nature" and "examples". How do
you recognize pages where the rule applies? Can we come up with an XML query
that will bring back a good example? There is a database that for a given WCAG
or AERT reference it can give you samples. Gives evidence of how A transforms
gracefully and how B does not.

LK How fit into EDL?

AG It's a record of an evaluation. This is a reference database that a
webmaster uses when someone complains. To answer "what do I do about it?"

WC This is something WCAG working on. Are you saying that it should EDL to
express these?

AG It is one example.

LK All EDL do is point to checkpoint not explicitly to example. Are you
saying that EDL points directly to example?

AG You're operating from an assumption of scope. I'm saying that what WCAG
is doing with the database is an application.

LK I.e. stop thinking about EDL scenarios, these are user scenarios. An EDL
plays a part of but not whole picture.

AG What is the value added? That's what trying to answer.

LK It may turn out that no additional functionality is needed to do this,
but a tool that uses EDL could follow second-order pointer. That's one
implementation.

WL I've been working on "How people with disabilities use the web." It
points into the curriculum. It has demonstrations of just about every
checkpoint. It is easy to reach into. How many other things like that
exist?

WC WCAG working on a database of techniques.

AG That is an area natural for WCAG to call on ERT. The concept of the
database is like the curriculum. We've got XML Schema coming up. The piece
that keeps me interested, is how do I go up on the Web to find similar pages
to what this rule is talking about. How do I find comparable pages.

HB Some tool was sniffing through lots of pages. It could address some of
our issues.

AG That logic could be used differently. The WCAG database is an example of
what I'm saying.

WC Clear that WCAG is a user of this. What other need to say now?

AG Content developer and web experts not the same people. 3rd activity is a
hands-on evaluation by someone with a disability. Those are 3 activities. What
are the communication mechanisms between them? Content developer likely not to
look for examples, but webmaster could provide.

Action LK: change the intro of user scenarios to broaden scope.

Action LK: Add a scenario related to examples.

Action LK: Add a scenario where a person is doing hands-on, usability
testing.

AG Mike Paciello has convinced Fidelity to make their site accessible.

Action AG: send discussion of overlap between database WCAG working on and
EDL work.

WL Has anyone talked with anyone with W3C geek-world about what we're
doing?

AG PF.

LK Daniel will go to the Amaya folks about whether they would input/output
EDL.

DD Yes I can ask. Although it's not an evaluation tool.

AG But it's an annotation tool.

WL The inclusion of these features in an authoring tool is useful.

LK Once we do that the whole thing shifts to AU.

AG We're close to where we were a couple years ago. We talked about
pointing into a broken document. This is saying one of our capabilities is a
universal diff so that people could ingest changes. Then user could see
propose "after" and accept or not.

LK Does the annotation capabilities have a diff capability?

WC Not needed, not changing anything.

Al's OOP proposal/example

AG The basic relationship is that it's a generic to specific relationship.
A generic evaluation method that's been applied. Recording app of some
evaluation method. The specific evaluation has a specific subject, what
evaluating. other ref info says how eval. what conclusions come to.

LK What we see here (the pseudo code) does this come up for each test? or
is there a header?

AG This is info, you query a test, and get info back. You have 3000 errors
of 17 kinds in the report language build structures that incorporate reference
to, this is the page i was on, etc. in terms of info requirements, this was
not in compliance.

WC test definition - get at how we were pointing into applications? like
authoring tool?

AG It could be a natural english description of how get circumstance or
pointer into son-of-AERT database in which queries and transforms that
describe a technique. the reference is to something and it has a broad range
of types. Only thing defined is the role and its relationship to what we
add.

WC inheritance?

AG I've tried to sketch an info graph, at the infoset level. If you make
this an XML language then you may point to test definition you may be
referencing either an ID that the author put in xml or auto-generated node id
that some XML to infoset algorithm generated. There is a numbering scheme in
infoset. Then you point to eval record with this id. we see this in svg. the
way you incorporate is by reference, if someone thought about referencing that
item. we prefer ids over paths, but can use paths as well. that's inherited
from xml environment. just an abstract link. The test method has an abstract
statement of input and output. The test method tells you the type of result.
"go/no-go" or prose paragraph. Core application of EDL doesn't define types of
results those are imported from test definitions.

WC you did not sketch that out.

AG Where I say "includeByRefinement" generic to specific relationship
between what refered to and what here. in the instance of an evaluation, the
result must conform to type definitions.

AG /* VHML pins on chip vs places on board actual vs formal references.*/
defn of test has generic info about what is touched during test, to complete
test must identify them. what was the actual viewer i was using to make this
comment.

LK Accessibility web examples.

AG actual (specific): point at image element, ends in .gif flunked refering
to actual string that is attribute of specific reference. formal (generic):
path through the syntax, the text which forms the "alt" attribute of any/some
instance of the HTML element type IMG.

LK EDL would not give go/no-go that would be inherited from the test
defining. What if the test defn written in prose? In something that is not
EDL? How be inheritance?

AG That's a type. We may develop additional vocabulary. If you tried to
reverse engineer AERT, this is a subtly that escapes manual, could be part of
EDL core. That may be one built-in attribute. I see this as putting a couple
modules together. There is core that integrates. Forget about doing
automatically, that would be suitable property to apply to that test
description. if it's just natural language prose, you could annotate that.
"forget trying to analyze." build a filter, how much manual eval am i willing
to put into. do one search for "what can i automate" for results then "what
are the test methods" then filter according to other rules.

WC so, saying this is just how to pull different pieces of the evaluation
record together.

AG Look at what people doing, not just what does the format do in there.
We're still looking for boundary on scope. The key thing is, what do different
activities have to tell each other. Then you take the different scenarios and
mix/match and normalize. The experts are a separate community - ask librarians
about dublin core. human factors ask about why this fails. there are some
things we define as glue to pull together. my OOP sketch is at level of "how
to we build something that supports the info map to support communication
between scenarios."

HB Anytime that one tests a site, one must test particular URI. Many have
changing content, therefore evaluation at one point differ from later
point.

WL They are 2 different things.

HB But have same URI.

WL The analysis is of a particular instance of that.

AG May need to provide a copy of some dynamic sites.

WL Consider machine as user.

Action WL: propose user scenario where machine is user.

AG Some more thoughts: As we try to gather mind around task, the user
scenarios are good to state objectives. At the same time, good to survey,
which resources can we build on. Sean clearly has finger on RDF as finger.
Daniel look at Amaya for prototype - what is the minimum stuff to build for a
working model. Charles prolog script is another example of something we could
use to play with to say have we identify the functionality we need or might
have missed. What are existing examples that come close that we can benchmark
requirements against. HB's issue send me back to WART - what info do they
capture?

Next meeting

Resolution: No meeting next week due to Christmas Day.

Action LK: confirm with AU that next joint meeting is 2 January.

AG To nominate something for the agenda, ask what their desires and
constraints regarding an evaluation description such that they could use it.
Likewise, repair description.